Disentangling the Alitos' situation from the Very Stable Genius's fortunes

 I may have mentioned this before here at LITD in some context, but I'll draw your attention presently to a post I wrote at The Freemen Newsletter last November titled "The Conflation Problem."

I do know that I've discussed the problem here before. It started once the GOP went all in for Trumpism, and has only gotten worse in the nine-year interim.

The Washington Post and CNN et al love nothing more than to brand drool-besotted yay-hoos like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Charlie Kirk as conservatives. And the drool-besotted yay-hoos love nothing more than to brand the likes of Liz Cheney as traitorous decidedly non conservatives.

The task of disentangling the real deal from Trumpism is one of the main things I write about, and discuss with my colleagues.

A lot of principled - I think - folks have made some kind of Faustian bargain in order to reach the widest audience. 

For instance, Guy Benson is a sociocultural observer with his head on straight, but he unfortunately has chosen to have the garbage site Townhall be a main outlet for his columns.

But his piece today is so important that I'm going to hold my nose and link and excerpt anyway.

It's on the business about the Alitos' flags, and it's rich with substantiation for his position, which is that it's all designed to erode the Supreme Court's independence and fealty to the Consittution:

Let's be explicitly clear: They are not doing so because they are genuinely concerned about "ethics." They are not doing so because there are clear violations or conflicts of interests at play (this cynical brigade has shown zero interest in similar or more flagrant potential issues involving the Court's leftist contingent).  They are doing so because the Court's conservative majority is denying them the outcomes they desire.  It's that simple.  They are laboring to tear down an institution that stands in the way of their extreme ideological project because they view and demand power as their ideological birthright. 

This is dangerous, both to "our democracy," about which they purport to care very deeply, and to the targeted justices.  We've witnessed the Democrats' Senate leader specifically threaten members of the Court by name, earning a rare rebuke from the Chief Justice.  We've seen ugly, menacing protests outside the family homes of various justices.  And we've even seen a thwarted assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which garnered shockingly little coverage.  As always, "civility" and "rhetoric" media panics cut in one direction among the progressives who run America's widely-distrusted, 'elite' newsrooms.  And it's from those newsrooms that the current, ludicrous controversy has emanated -- driven by activists, and picked up by elected Democrats.  It's ginned-up nonsense.  It's embarrassing.  And it's all so transparent.  The country is supposed to be scandalized by an upside-down American flag flown outside of Justice Sam Alito's home in early January 2021.  The country was then instructed to be further appalled by the discovery of another, 'insurrectionist-linked' flag flying at his vacation home.  

Justice Alito has explained the 2021 incident, drawing incredulous heckles from the Left, but it turns out that his account aligns with contemporaneous reporting from the Washington Post.  Indeed, back at the time, the Post looked into the matter and found the episode so unremarkable that they didn't even run a story on it.  But here we are, years later, and the manufactured outrage machine insists that everyone simply ignore this [the fact that WaPo determined it was a non-story at the time].

It getting 'out of hand' was the whole point, of course.  But the fact remains that the Post dug into this flap more than three years ago and declined to report on it after concluding that the upside-down flag was hoisted by the justice's wife, over a neighborhood dispute.  The dispute, it seems, originated from bouts of profane rudeness from left-wing residents: "Alito said that a neighbor had posted a sign saying 'F**k Trump' near a school bus stop and then a sign attacking his wife, Martha-Ann Alito. On a walk, the justice told Fox, the Alitos got into an argument with the neighbor, who used the term 'c**t' at one point. His wife then flew the inverted flag," which is a sign of distress.  But the New York Times' breathless reporting in recent days is designed to conjure up the impression that Alito is a pro-Capitol-riot, 'stop the steal' lunatic.  Facts that were explored and dismissed at the time have been resurrected and distorted, as part of a shameless political hit job.  As for the other 'problematic flag,' what an embarrassing attack:

Rather than retreat in humiliation, the Times doubled down this week with a follow-up report of yet another flag—this one right-side up—spotted at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey. The left tells us that the 1775 Pine Tree flag was spotted among Jan. 6 protesters! And moreover, that its catch phrase, “an appeal to heaven,” derives from a radical character—John Locke. The Times somehow fails to let readers know that the flag is a longtime symbol of independence; that it was designed by George Washington’s secretary; was flown on ships commissioned by Washington; has been honored, commemorated and flown over state capitols; and is the official maritime flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is currently displayed outside the office of the speaker of the House. Dozens of historic flags were toted to the Capitol on Jan. 6, as were copies of the Constitution and pictures of the American eagle. Are they all now symbols of “insurrection”?

Benson then notes that the Appeal to Heaven flew at San Francisco City Hall last year.

Another big story of the current news cycle is the conclusion of Trump's falsifying-of-business-records trial in New York. 

Now, I'm inclined to think that serious, respect-worthy legal minds such as Andrew McCarthy have the better argument - namely, that Bragg and Merchan have been licking their chops at the prospect of incarcerating the Very Stable Genius, at the expense of a sound legal case. 

But there's the matter of focus, and I have trouble - as I have for some time - with Byron York's emphasis on the legal flimsiness and those who de-emphasize that. Today, at The Washington Examiner, he zeroes in on the change in George Conway's thinking:

“Not all that long ago, I thought that the trial currently being held … seemed the least serious of the cases against him,” wrote George Conway, the conservative lawyer-turned-Biden megadonor, in the Atlantic earlier this month. “But I feel the need to admit error. The truth is, I’ve come around to the view that People v. Trump is, in at least some ways, the perfect case to put Trump in the dock for the first time, and — I hope, but we’ll see — perhaps prison.”

Why is that? Conway, one of the more aggressive members of the anti-Trump resistance, wrote that he now believes the Manhattan case perfectly exposed what he says are Trump’s myriad lies. But for the resistance, the most salient fact about the Manhattan trial is this: It is happening. It is getting done before the election, which is the most important consideration for Democrats who pray that a Trump conviction could change the dynamics of a presidential race in which Trump leads President Joe Biden.

True enough, but there's something damn weasel-y about overlooking this major aspect of the matter:

 doesn’t it look a little incongruous for House Speaker Mike Johnson, who makes a point of putting his Christian faith front and center, to make the prosecution’s zeal the main point? Yes, there is a solid rule-of-law angle to this, and precedents could be set that would subject future presidents to ever-more-frivolous legal challenges.

And yes, Michael Cohen has done his credibility no favors over the past few years, but come on, nobody doubts that Trump had a tryst with Stormy Daniels (the included a bonus spanking with a rolled-up magazine) or a months-long affair with Karen McDougal, all while Melania was home with an infant Barron. Nobody doubts there were other dalliances as well.

For the I’m-not-voting-for-a-pastor crowd, I’d ask how confident they are that things would go well on a policy level in a. second Trump administration. 

Europe is finally waking up to the need to address the increasing menace from Russia, ramping up its production of materiel, as well as looking at how to effectively man the continent’s collective military force, to positioning nuclear missiles in a more forward manner,

No, I'm not for sleazy tactics in the bringing down of Donald Trump. But I'm damn sure all for bringing him down.  

Anybody who's cool with voting for someone so devoid of character and consistency, who thinks he could solve the world's hot-spot crises with the power of his charm, and that he could do so transactionally  - that is, in insisting on a quid pro quo for the aggressed-upon parties in each case - is no conservative.

"But it's going to be a binary choice in November."

No, it's not. You can stay home and rest well at night knowing the eternal record book shows that you weren't a party to either form of American ruination. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel is a litmus test of the world's capability of moral clarity; it's failing badly

 There's the International Criminal Court's moral-equivalency framing in its intent to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israeli defense minister Gallant. Oh, yes, it also wants to arrest Yahya Sinwar and other Hamas leaders, Ain't that nice?

And now there's this:

 Norway, Ireland and Spain said on Wednesday they are recognizing a Palestinian state, in a historic but largely symbolic move that deepens Israel’s isolation more than seven months into its grinding war against Hamas in Gaza.

 . . . Israel recalled its ambassadors to the three countries and summoned their envoys, accusing the Europeans of rewarding the militant Hamas group for its Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war.

Netanyahu's government, which is opposed to Palestinian statehood, says the conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations, which last collapsed over 15 years ago.

As if to underline the point, Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir paid a provocative visit Wednesday to a flashpoint holy site in Jerusalem sacred to Jews and Muslims in a move that could escalate tensions across the region.

Ben-Gvir said the visit was a response to the move by the three European countries. “We will not even allow a statement about a Palestinian state,” he said. The Al-Aqsa mosque compound is the third holiest site in Islam, and the hilltop on which it stands is the holiest site for Jews, who refer to it as the Temple Mount.

With their formal recognition, planned for May 28, the three countries will join some 140 — more than two-thirds of the United Nations — that have recognized the state of Palestine over the years. The United States and Britain, among others, have backed the idea of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel but say it should come as part of a negotiated settlement.

The announcements from Europe came in a swift cascade. Norway, which helped broker the Oslo accords that kicked off the peace process in the 1990s, was the first to announce its decision, with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre saying “there cannot be peace in the Middle East if there is no recognition.”

Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris called it an “historic and important day for Ireland and for Palestine,” saying the announcements had been coordinated and that other countries might join “in the weeks ahead.”

The international community has long viewed the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as the only realistic way to resolve the conflict, and in past weeks several European Union countries have indicated they plan to recognize a Palestinian state to further those efforts.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who announced his country's decision before parliament, has spent months touring European and Middle Eastern countries to garner support for recognition, as well as for a possible cease-fire in Gaza.

“This recognition is not against anyone, it is not against the Israeli people,” Sánchez said. “It is an act in favor of peace, justice and moral consistency.” He said it was clear that Netanyahu “does not have a project for peace,” while acknowledging that “the fight against the terrorist group Hamas is legitimate.”

Israel's government harshly condemned the decision taken by the three countries. Foreign Minister Israel Katz recalled Israel's ambassadors and summoned the three countries' envoys in Israel. He said they would watch grisly video footage of the Oct. 7 attack.

“History will remember that Spain, Norway, and Ireland decided to award a gold medal to Hamas murderers and rapists," he said. He also said the announcement would undermine talks aimed at a cease-fire and hostage release in Gaza that came to a standstill earlier this month.

President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, welcomed the moves toward recognition, saying they would contribute to efforts to bring about a two-state solution.

Mahmoud Abbas. Would that be the guy who won one election for a six-year term as head of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank decades ago and has held the office ever since?

And, excuse me for bringing up an awkward subject, but all talk of a two-state solution is pretty ephemeral without some universally agreed-upon parties agreeing to borders for a Palestinian state, as well as what kinds of government for such a state the international community would not find acceptable. 

We've been down that road - in 1937, with the Peel Commission, in 1947, with the UN proposal, and the 1990s attempts at it: the Oslo Accords (which were closely followed by the Second Intifada) and the sight, indelibly etched in the national memory, of Madeleine Albright chasing Yasser Arafat down the hall in her high heels, imploring him to return to the negotiating room to hear the very latest idea on the matter. 

And now this:

Egyptian intelligence quietly changed the terms of a ceasefire proposal that Israel had already signed off on earlier this month, ultimately scuttling a deal that could have released Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and set a pathway to temporarily end the fighting in Gaza, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

The ceasefire agreement that Hamas ended up announcing on May 6 was not what the Qataris or the Americans believed had been submitted to Hamas for a potential final review, the sources said.

The changes made by Egyptian intelligence, the details of which have not been previously reported, led to a wave of anger and recrimination among officials from the US, Qatar and Israel, and left ceasefire talks at an impasse.

“We were all duped,” one of those sources told CNN.

Can we please stop talking about "achieving a lasting peace?" There's going to be maximum tension in the Middle East, occasionally erupting into hot wars of varying degrees of peril to the world at large, until there's general recognition, among all the types of nations in the world, of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish representative democracy.  

Friday roundup

 Glenn Harlan Reynolds has a thought-provoking take on the Harrison Butker dustup at Instapundit:

Speaking to a graduation crowd at conservative Catholic Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, Butker took on Joe Biden’s performative faux-Catholicism, transgender ideology and – most shockingly – suggested to female graduates that they would find a better, more rewarding, and more productive life as wives and mothers than in corporate-style careers.

For this, he received a standing ovation from the crowd. (The full speech is here.)  The wider world, however, was not so appreciative. . . 

Unlike Harrison Butker, I’m not holding myself out as a role model here.  When I married Helen she was finishing her Ph.D., and I don’t think I ever had a single serious girlfriend who wanted to be a stay-at-home mom.  (And we only had one – terrific – kid, though we in fact wanted to, and tried to, have two or three, something that alas wasn’t in the cards.)

But what I want or favor isn’t the point here.  The point is that the population collapse that I was writing about nearly 20 years ago, and that Philip Longman was writing about in Foreign Affairs even before that, has now become obvious to everyone.  We’re headed for the biggest global population drop since the Black Death, and that’s going to produce dramatic social changes.  (As indeed did the Black Death.)

The future does belong to those who show up, and those who show up are likely to have the attitudes that caused them to do so.  So is Harrison Butker a harbinger?  Quite probably.

At Public Discourse, Nathaniel Peters asks "Why Should a Christian Study the Humanities?"   He offers several reasons, including this one:

. . . to cultivate a disposition of wonder, thanksgiving, and praise. These are the proper responses of rational creatures to the creator God. We should study so that when we encounter an equation or sculpture of great beauty, or an exquisitely crafted sentence, our response is one of praise or thanksgiving. So often in the academy, we’re trained to critique, to put ourselves over another author or book or work and make judgments from a position of superiority. This is necessary at times, but when it becomes our default, it can keep us from enjoying a work and allowing it to move us. A properly Christian kind of study leaves room for that vulnerability and enjoyment, for cultivating wonder and praise. After all, praise of God is at its heart restating the truth about who God is and what he has done. Study of the truth should lead to richer, more sustained praise.

"Two Reflections On the State of the Soul" by Darren Jonescu is good stuff:

Nothing is sadder than a profound statement reduced to popular cliché. “The unexamined life is not worth living” spouted by a million undifferentiated graduate students, as if “the examined life” were the simplest thing on earth, rather than Socrates’ final statement of defiance to a world he believed largely incapable of taking up the challenge. “What does not kill me makes me stronger” issuing from the lips of every infantile adult facing the abyss of a break-up after a two-month sexual relationship, or every student who suffers the indignity of a B grade on a test. Such reduction indicates the stifling of a liberating idea by a method far more complete and effective than the mere refusal to listen, namely by the absorption and normalization of the shocking and strange within the unobtrusive soundscape of comforting truisms, the voice of the rousing gadfly transformed into a soothing lullaby. Socrates warned that the voice of reason could not be heard amid the crowd. But his warning was less a lament than an enticement to the alternative setting, the realm of private conversation or quiet contemplation. When that realm itself has been conquered and converted into just another subsection of the popular space — when the language of wisdom has been reduced by the dynamic compression of technological democratization into just another shade in the general array of lifeless colors — then Socrates’ ironic stand against the chatter of the crowd, or Nietzsche’s brave acceptance of his spiritual agony before mankind’s approaching nihilism, become superficial routines, and the world, in turn, becomes an infinitely darker place.

At Firebrand, Rachel L. Coleman looks deeply into the significance of story, of narrative:

our Story is the story of the God who works redemptively in history, and it is centered upon the person and work of King Jesus. As Nijay Gupta (2024) puts it, “The crucified Christ is the vivifying center of our Story” (Galatians, 2). We are invited into this grand Story not just as readers but also as participants, equipped by the Spirit of God to join God in his redemptive work. Think of how many of the significant smaller narratives that make up the Story have open endings—Jonah, Mark’s Gospel, Acts. The very design invites us to step in and “complete,” as it were, the narrative.

The urgency of this is that we all, both as individuals and as communities, are shaped by a Story (big S), and if it is not the grand Narrative of Scripture, there will be other big Stories that usurp its formative and transformative role. These Stories are alternative ways of answering the fundamental questions human beings ask, and they can be so subtly and deeply woven into the generational and ideological fabric of our communities that we are not even aware of their controlling power. N.T. Wright and Michael Bird (2024), in a chilling phrase, call these alternative Stories “idolatries too large to be noticed by those who hold them” (Jesus and the Powers, 100). Their keen insight is a flashing yellow light for the church, calling us to the difficult and vulnerable work of examining our controlling narratives.

Wesleyan scholar Ken Collins calls this phenomenon “narrative displacement” or “narrative drift,” the shoving aside of the biblical Story by another controlling narrative. When this happens in our communities of faith, consciously or otherwise, the result is that we no longer interpret the world through the lens of the Story of Scripture; instead we read Scripture through the lens of whatever narrative has displaced the biblical Story. The results of this narrative drift are catastrophic for both discipleship and mission. As far back as 2008, Australian sociologist John Carroll painted a stark picture of the consequences, which have become ever more visible in the intervening years. As an outsider (not a professing Christian) looking at the decline of the church in the West, Carroll diagnosed the root problem as the church’s amnesia about its Story: “The Christian churches have comprehensively failed in their one central task—to retell their foundational story in a way that might speak to the times” (The Existential Jesus, 7). I encourage you to read that line again, allowing its gravity to sink deeply into your mind and heart. This Story-telling failure stands in sharp contrast to what we see in the pages of the New Testament.. As Wright and Bird put it:

Paul [and this could be said of all the apostles] was not a travelling evangelist, offering people a new religious experience, but an ambassador for a king-in-waiting, establishing cells of people loyal to this new king, and ordering their lives according to his story, his symbols and his praxis, and their minds according to his truth (21, emphasis added).

This would be a good point for each reader to do some clear-eyed diagnostic work, preferably in the company of trusted brothers and sisters. Can you identify the competing big Story (or Stories) that usurp the place and power of the biblical Story in the minds and hearts of your community of faith? What are those stories? Where do they come from? How are they shaping the beliefs, thinking, attitudes, and actions of people in your church and community? 

Ben Sears's weekly "POETS Day!" installment at Ordinary Times always provides fresh insights into the greatest craftspersons of that particular kind of writing.  Today he looks at Philip Larkin:

n the introduction to Philip Larkin: Poems Selected by Martin Amis, Amis writes of the poet, “Larkin is not a poet’s poet. He is of course a people’s poet, which is what he would have wanted. But he is also, definingly, a novelist’s poet.”

Larkin had a knack for evocative images. In a tight phrase, he could suggest a lifetime. The above poem, “Afternoons”, has one of what I consider the best examples with “And the albums, lettered/Our Wedding, lying/Near the television.” Like in the shortest story often attributed to Hemingway, “Baby shoes, for sale, never worn,” loose details leave much to us. It’s slight of hand, a storyteller’s trick, because when we give flesh to the tale we’ll do so with scenes that already resonate with us. There’s little risk in not relating to a reader that makes his own conveying connection. The talent is in knowing how to spur us to imagining. Larkin knew how.

He gives us a destination and a starting point and we don’t know the interim, but we do. There’s a couple that was full of hope and expectation, indulging in possibility, frozen and bound in a flash. What would be a cherished heirloom under different circumstances shares space with a box for watching other people’s lives. Captured images on the tv screen and in the book are a fantasy; unreal. It doesn’t matter what circumstances relegated the wedding album. There’s room for all manner of possibilities because it isn’t the story of one couple. There’s “An estateful.”

Amis highlights “mugfaced middleaged wives/Glaring at jellies” from “Show Saturday.” I know those women, and I suspect you do too. Larkin is brilliantly acerbic. He cuts cruelly because he cuts directly when mockingly describing habits and rituals of life he finds silly or undignified. When that insight is used to address his own shortcomings and failings, resulting circumstances, and his attempts to cope with them he’s often resigned and bitter.

Finally, I've been busy over at Precipice. A few recents:

 

What My Day Was Like the Day of the OJ Verdict folds the looming death of my beloved dog, ten hours of establishing a working relationship with a photographer with whom I'd been paired on a magazine assignment, watching the OJ verdict with a crowd in the lobby of the Circle Theater in downtown Indianapolis, witnessing, quite by surprise, a summit of two great jazz musicians, and much more.

On April 25, I looked at the consequences of Extolling Amnesia as a Virtue:

f the notion that the human being can define - indeed, invent - himself or herself continues to prevail, the most feral kind of defined self will be the one that holds sway. This will occur because self-defense in a state of lawlessness will return us to pre-human behavior such as traveling in packs and disregard for any kind of rules when it comes to such basics as obtaining food and a warm place to sleep. We’re already seeing some of the traveling-in-packs phenomenon with the degree to which militant identity politics has permeated everything.

In Friendship, I look at how our notions of what that term means change throughout the seasons of our lives. 

It looks to be a hammock kind of weekend. You now have an abundance of reading material for the occasion. 

 

 

 

 

Good Mike, bad Mike

 On the heels of doing the obviously right thing in getting an aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan passed - and garnering worldwide accolades for doing so - House Speaker Mike Johnson makes it apparently every bit as obvious that he is a drool-besotted throne-sniffer who is tying his ambitions to the fate of the Very Stable Genius:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) survived a bid by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to oust him from the speakership thanks to Democrats killing her effort, but some may be having second thoughts.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) told NBC News he believes Democrats made a mistake by killing the motion to vacate against him, arguing Johnson’s visit to former President Donald Trump’s trial in Manhattan has exposed the House speaker’s “true colors.”

“It showed his true colors and why, with good intentions, we made a mistake in strategically saving his job,” Connolly said. “Because now we have enabled him to act with impunity like he did.”

The effort to oust Johnson was tabled by an overwhelming majority in a 359-43 bipartisan vote, with most Republicans and Democrats electing to keep Johnson in power rather than risk another long, bitter speaker election like in January and October 2023.

The House speaker told the outlet he does not think he will face another motion to vacate this year, noting how most members want a “functioning Congress.”

“What I think most people in this building recognize is that the nation desperately needs a functioning Congress right now,” Johnson said. “These are very dangerous times in which we are living. We have hot wars going on around the globe. And we have all the unrest. Even here domestically, we’ve had the open border, so we have a potentially very dangerous situation here on our own shores.”

Johnson was one of several Republicans who have made the trek to Manhattan to support Trump as he attends his hush money trial.

Other Republicans who joined Trump in New York City included Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) and Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and J.D. Vance (R-OH), along with Reps. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Byron Donalds (R-FL), and Cory Mills (R-FL).

As I wrote at Precipice yesterday,

. . . doesn’t it look a little incongruous for House Speaker Mike Johnson, who makes a point of putting his Christian faith front and center, to make the prosecution’s zeal the main point? Yes, there is a solid rule-of-law angle to this, and precedents could be set that would subject future presidents to ever-more-frivolous legal challenges . . . but come on, nobody doubts that Trump had a tryst with Stormy Daniels (the included a bonus spanking with a rolled-up magazine) or a months-long affair with Karen McDougal, all while Melania was home with an infant Barron. Nobody doubts there were other dalliances as well.

For the I’m-not-voting-for-a-pastor crowd, I’d ask how confident they are that things would go well on a policy level in a. second Trump administration.

The Speaker needs to ask himself if his choice to hitch to this wagon really glorifies the Creator he claims to put first.

 

 

History will not look kindly on Biden's treatment of Israel

 The president's pause in shipment of a new round of munitions for Israel betrays one of the United States's closest allies and ups the imperiling of the West to a new level.

As is often the case when someone is trying to morally justify an untenable position, in his interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, he pretty much acknowledged -whether he meant to or not - that he knows the bombs in question will achieve the very aim Israel is pursuing:

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett in an exclusive interview on “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to 2,000-pound bombs that Biden paused shipments of last week.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.

The president’s announcement that he was prepared to condition American weaponry on Israel’s actions amounts to a turning point in the seven-month conflict between Israel and Hamas. And his acknowledgement that American bombs had been used to kill civilians in Gaza was a stark recognition of the United States’ role in the war.

Biden - and the peaceniks and antinomians with a morbid fascination with jihad with whom he's trying to curry favor - act like the IDF gives no attention to the effectiveness of its strikes, that it gives no thought to collateral damage.

Actually, the held-up munitions are the most advance way to achieve the aim with minimal impact on civilian life:

Last week, the administration’s line was that it needed to see a plausible evacuation plan from Rafah—a statement indicating that it still supported the overall aim of eliminating Hamas and that the problem going forward was primarily logistical. So that might simply have been a lie. It’s no secret Biden doesn’t want Israel to conduct a full-scale war operation in Rafah, but the administration made it sound as though that was entirely on humanitarian grounds.

But if his primary aim is to limit civilian casualties, his methods of doing so are insane. The munitions he is holding back would in part allow Israel to hit sites and areas in Rafah with great precision. That is how you limit casualties. Which leads me to believe that Joe Biden is literally trying to freeze the conflict in place permanently—for his own reasons. Those reasons are bad, and stupid, and feckless, and self-defeating. For Israel cannot stop the war. It can’t. If it does, Hamas wins—at which point Israel will begin a new period of mortal peril perhaps more threatening to its future than any period in its past. The Israeli public will not stand for it. Because of what Biden is doing, the war will be bloodier and more costly for both sides, and will take much longer. How on earth will that help him?

Think about what kind of cackling and rubbing together of hands is going on in the inner governmental chambers of Iran, Russia, China and North Korea. The debacle at the Kabul airport in August 2021gave our foes a strong signal that Biden had no consistent foreign policy vision. This seals the deal.

And the shipment of bombs and ammunition had already been approved by Congress. How is this different from Trump holding up aid to Ukraine in an attempt to motivate Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden (a move the got him impeached)?

A fine state of affairs. A US president mishandles a crucial moment when a ringing victory for the West is at hand.

This is why, since 2016, I have not bought the binary-choice argument.

The Very Stable Genius, who we now know likes to be spanked by his casual sex partners, is an obvious thumbs-down.

But this current guy? He's forever stained himself with a shame that will impact us all.